 |
|
|
stowman2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 13, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $80.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, Fun, and Sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
For $80 nothing
|
|
|
I love this lens. It is just fun to use this lens on both my DRebel and Elan 7. Yes it does feel cheap, but it is cheap. It is great if you are learning about photography.
|
|
 Mar 5, 2005
|
|
stephenmak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Feb 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $111.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, light, great resolution. Did I say already say cheap?
|
|
Cons:
|
What everyone else says -- cheap feeling -- but that's because it's cheap.
|
|
|
Cheap lens.
Lousy build quality.
Great optical quality.
It's a snack given the price/performance ratio. It's a must have.
The bokeh is not the best, but it's sharp, it's fast, and it's cheap.
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2005
|
|
Areta
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 19, 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 334
|
|
Review Date: Feb 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, weight, value for money
|
|
Cons:
|
build quality, AF
|
|
|
A must have
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2005
|
|
coreypolis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1754
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Leight, sharp and dirt cheep
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality and manual focusing
|
|
|
First one I had I dropped from about 3 feet, it broke in two. But its so useful that I had to re-buy it
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2005
|
|
judhi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 9, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, light, cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
less saturated color
|
|
|
A must have for SLR/DSLR user, unless you have extra budget for 50mm f/1.4 which cost 4 times of this glass.
Color photo might not be as good as the 50mm f/1.4 but the sharpness I get is incredible. Very good for BW photo with my 20D.
|
|
|
Feb 9, 2005
|
|
CanonB
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Feb 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, cheap, small. Amazing lens for the price.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Everytime I get a new lens, Im never sure its a good copy. But this time, Im sure I have a good one, a perfect one actually.
My 50mm 1.8 is giving me the sharpest images I never had. Simply amazing. Even at 1.8, its sharper than many lenses I had in the past.
Im now considering to get 2 more primes now. The 85 1.8 and probably the 28 or the 35mm.
|
|
|
Feb 7, 2005
|
|
walter23
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 30, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 2685
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, good optics, very lightweight, useful focal length.
|
|
Cons:
|
Feels like a toy, useless manual focus ring, slightly noisy autofocus motor.
|
|
|
I really can't say much that hasn't been said about this lens. I bought it because it was a very cheap way to get a fast maximum aperture of f/1.8. The depth of field is, of course, amazingly tiny at that aperture, which in practice means you have to be careful with focus if you use it. I love the low light capabilities of this lens and the ability to get such a narrow DOF.
Honestly I can't see any major improvements in optical quality over my 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM zoom (at this focal length) though. It might be slightly better, but that's really not why I use it. For me, it's mainly a low light or dramatically small-DOF tool.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2005
|
|
adamp88
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 666
|
|
Review Date: Feb 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, extremely lightweight, best bang for the buck in the Canon lineup
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality, zoom noise, a little bit soft wide open
|
|
|
Yes, the build quality is cheap, but you know what? Even with the cheapo build quality I've had absolutely no issues with it. It's the lightest lens in the Canon line-up, extremely sharp, and extremely useful in low light situations. And at ~$70, a lens that everyone should own.
|
|
|
Feb 4, 2005
|
|
Xevion
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $75.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight, size, price, sharpness stopped down, F1.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality, focus ring
|
|
|
One can't ask all that much out of a $75 lens, and the 50 1.8 isn't perfect. This is a plastic lens, and it feels plasticky. More importantly, the focusing ring is simply useless, it just feels crude and inaccurate, and it doesn't combine well with the small viewfinder on the 300D, it's just hard to get a good focus at wide aperatures, which is where you'd be using the MF on this lens.
This is a very good snapshot lens for avalible light. Set the ISO to 800 or 1600, and shoot away. As long as shutter speeds are acceptable, you can get very printable results with this lens wide open, although it does gain noticably in sharpness if you close it down a couple stops.
This makes a good AF portrait lens, for the price, but the pricier 50mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.8 will get better results - you do have to be careful with the background a little bit here, as bright lights are poorly represented. The background blur itself could be better, but it isn't bad.
This is a lens that many people will use a lot of the time, and some people will use rarely, but there will usually be some kind of a need for a fast prime lens, and at the price of this, few people have reason to not carry one.
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2005
|
|
teglis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1094
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, sharpness, aperture
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality, bokeh, no distance scale
|
|
|
First, the positive aspects of this lens are far more important than the negative ones. It is an amazing bargain, getting you into the world of sharp, wide-aperture primes for very little money.
On sharpness: it's a little soft wide open, but not intolerable. Indeed, understanding DOF is more important at large apertures. Stopped down, it is excellent, only a little off from my sharpest lens (IMO), the 85mm f/1.8 (see profile for complete list). I have recently upgraded to the 50mm f/1.4 USM and cannot see any difference in sharpness between the two 50s.
On a 1.6 crop camera, this becomes a good portrait lens for small groups (2-4 people), though I prefer the 85/1.8 for head shots.
It's small, light and I have been know to go out with just it on the camera. It's really a no-brainer for someone building a lens collection who doesn't specifically want the 50/1.4.
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2005
|
|
jbd1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 440
|
|
Review Date: Jan 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $80.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, sharp, good for low light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Feels cheap, focal length on 300D/10D/20D very non-useful to me. Sample focus variation (slight front focus on mine).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2005
|
|
spawnofbill
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 10, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jan 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $75.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, bokeh is very nice, cheap as hell! great color, 1.8 is incredibly useful in low light, did I mention it was cheap!
|
|
Cons:
|
narrow DOF, doesn't track moving objects very well, plastic mount, no distance window, flare (ok, I was shooting in a theater straight up into the lights, but hey)
|
|
|
One of Canon's best bang for your buck, this lens is a great portrait lens on a 1.6 body, providing an exquivalent of 80mm. Really glad I got this lens since I do a lot of low light work with fast moving people. (theater, indoor sports)
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2005
|
|
CurtPick
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Nov 21, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3260
|
|
Review Date: Jan 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light , compact, cheap in price, sharp as sharp can get
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic body, no range window like the Mark 1, plastic mount
|
|
|
I would rate this lens an equal to the USM 1.4. I could see no difference in quality of shots and sharpness. The bokeh is awe inspiring. At $69.00 U.S. this will please all who buy it. Although its made of plastic, the glass is outstanding. This little baby is close if not equal to an L lens. Buy it ! You will not be dissapointed !
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2005
|
|
mateo_
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 688
|
|
Review Date: Jan 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $75.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent optical performance for the price, good focal on 1.6x sensors
|
|
Cons:
|
LENS HOOD, AF, focus ring, very cheap build
|
|
I have very mixed feelings about this lens. Everything's pretty much been said about this lens already- great optics, crap build. Some of my best shots have come from this lens, and it has been an invaluable learning tool for getting my "feet wet" in photography. The optics are great, and it may be a little soft wide open but it's not that big a deal. @ 2.8 or above it's as sharp as can be. The bokeh is bad, but that's only because I own the 135 f/2L and so I've become a bokeh snob  .
What aggravates me to no end about this lens, and why I'll be happy when I get rid of it, is the build. I guess I'm anal when it comes to this sort of thing, but I can't help noticing how bad this thing is put together. The body and mount are plastic; I don't mind this part too much. The AF is loud and somewhat high-pitched, the focus ring and switch so small, and the movement of the focus ring really gritty. The kicker is the lens hood- you need an adapter ring for an awkward hood that kind of clips on. This clipping mechanism is so poor that it's nearly impossible to easily reverse the hood if you need to. My biggest pet peeve is that the hood adapter is made of some metal, I think, well something different than the plastic- when the hood rotates, rubbing against the adapter, or when you go to screw in the adapter, you can easily make a sound like that of nails on a chalkboard. I just really don't like the whole set-up.
Final thought: this is an optically great lens, but do what you can to swing for a 50/1.4, or one of the 35's. You probably will love using it a whole lot more, and physical usability is IMHO just as important, if not more important, as optical usability. Whichever one you get, stick it on your camera and keep it there for a while.
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2005
|
|
chounchai
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2005
Location: Thailand
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $98.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very valuable when compare the result with price. Sharpness is good @ wide open and better stop down.
|
|
Cons:
|
Look cheap (which better to forget about it), fair boken
|
|
This is a lens that I just bought it because it so cheap, very rare to use it but every time I use it always got good result.
Just see some interesting here.
http://www.pbase.com/chounws3/mural_painting_in_thai_temple
|
|
|
Jan 9, 2005
|
|
armbrust
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: Jan 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cost, sharp, fast, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic and flimsy, MF ring, AF noise, bokeh, contrast
|
|
|
This lens is a must have for a starter kit. It is fast, sharp, it doesn't weigh much, and it is super SUPER cheap. You can't buy anything cheaper...and this lens will serve you well. If you are thinking of doing any low light photography indoors, this lens is a champ. The pictures require a bit of post processing from my 20D to get the POP factor..but that aspect is waiting in every picture. One gripe is that the bokeh can get "clumpy" at times which can be somewhat unattractive in pictures.
|
|
|
Jan 6, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
344
|
518075
|
Apr 17, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
94% of reviewers
|
$128.35
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
5.89
|
9.55
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
